Democracy or Dictatorship?

Some misguided people believe in a spirit that can interact with god. Once you are dead there is nothing else that happens. No god, no hell, no "spirit". We should probably end this line of thought soon because it is very quickly becoming a religious debate thread, when it is supposed to be about democracy or dictatorship.

I think the question would be better answered by a person who lives or has lived under a dictator's rule.

Considering commentary I heard from people that have lived under a dictatorship, I am quite sure that not one of them would choose dictator over democracy.

That being said, one could argue special circumstances, take Iraq for example, it has been argued that the current tribal culture that exists where they kill each other because of religious differences is not ready for self rule, they, and the rest of the world, are better served by that culture living under a dictatorship.

While that does make sense to me on the surface, I like to believe that over time, calmer heads will prevail, their children will grow up in a changing culture where peace is a possibility, and the radical idea that you don't have to kill people just because they do not share your religious beliefs will look more and more attractive.

Under a dictatorship there would be no change, only suppression and segregation, even if that suppression serves the purpose of preventing them from killing each other, it also suppresses the growth of ideas and possibilities, generation after generation only knowing hate for others, never given the chance to grow and advance their culture into one where they can accept those that are different from themselves.

As far as what is better in my opinion, the answer is simple.

In the U.S. most refer to us as a democracy although we are a constitutional republic, I will use this as an example.
We have freedom of expression that allows the free flowing of ideas which advances our culture beyond those cultures that suppress the free flowing of ideas, for this reason by itself I say that it is much better than the suppressive dictatorship.

I think the US should let the Iraqi people deal with their own problems. That is what America did and it worked. It was bloody and tribal but in the long run it worked.

I can certainly relate to that sentiment, look how long it took for the U.S. to get to where we are now.

Our high speed culture wants to change the Iraqi culture over night, that just simply isn't going to happen, and I think our presence there, as good as the intentions may be(?), at least psychologically is a form of suppression as in we are not letting the Iraqi's decide for themselves whether they want to kill each other, or live in peace.

Just let nature takes it's course, and nature is slow, but alas the world wants that oil, and god forbid that the natural growth and development of the indigenous people get in the way of the worlds oil supply, shame on us for suggesting such a thing ;)

I suspect Iraq was better off before we went there -- a dictatorship, even though it may be seemingly cruel, is sometimes a better solution than democracy. There were no terrorists in Iraq under Sadaam, except of course Sadaam himself.

While I personally suspect that the people that made the decision to go into Iraq believe they had more than one reason, if there was no oil in Iraq I firmly believe we would not have gone there.

I am pretty conservative but do believe that my government, no matter who's in the White House, doesn't give a rats hind end about the people in Iraq, only about that flow of oil and stability in that region that keeps the oil flowing.

To support my argument I simply offer Gulf War 1, the west was quite content on leaving Saddam in power because he kept stability through tyranny, our govt. did not care then what happened to the people of Iraq so long as the oil flowed, and it flowed.

I wish the best for the Iraqi people, I hope they grow into a more tolerant culture and can join the rest of the civilized world, and regardless of whether or not the reasons for invading Iraq were right or wrong, my hopes are that the Iraqi people will progress their culture as a result of it, something that just was not going to happen under the iron fist of Saddam.

So even if we in the west were not justified in the invasion, hopefully good will come of it that would not otherwise have happened.

We are also getting far off the original question, I really intended to just use Iraq as an example to support my opinion on democracy vs dictator ;)

"By definition", a dictator is one who has the power to make decisions for governing as he wishes. A democracy is ruled by the will of the majority of the people. But no democracy today can manage to make ALL its decisions by putting its' issues to a vote. Instead, they elect individuals who, in one way or another, are dictators and who are supposed to make the decisions they dictate, according to the will of the majority of people who elected them. If the majority of the people are pleased with their dictator, he/she gets re-elected. If they are dissatified with the dictator they have elected, the majority votes for a replacement.
Does that arrangement sound familiar to you? Each democratic society/country works out the details of the limits of the powers it gives to its elected dictator and the controls ("checks and balances") it maintains to prevent the dictator from abusing his/her powers.
Of course, as in any democratic society, you can't please everyone all the time, but the priciple of "one person = one vote" basicly gives everyone the same potential to participate in making decisions.
If it didn't sound familiar before, it should now. It's all in the name (or name change).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not being sarcastic or cynical but openly honest. In every democracy there must be dictators. The quality of the democratic dictatorship lies in the quality of the dictators we elect and the confines we place on them so that they really do carry out the will of the democratic majority.
All this is simpler said than done--for example, what if an elected dictator reverses the platform he proclaimed before he was elected and manages to stay within the confines of the law that allow him to continue serving out his term of office?
This is not just a theoretical question, but I stop at this point before I get TOO involved.
I hope I answered your question.

no, they are not dictators at all. The President, Senitors, Congressmen and members of USSC do not have dictator powers. A dictator, by definition, can not be removed from office other than by dying -- whats-his-name from Cuba is a prime example. No one in USA is able to retain power forever without the will of the people.

That is my point--in a democratic dictatorship you have to be elected into office and your office has a termination point. But while in office, much of what the elected official can do is in the realm of dictatorial powers--an example that comes to mind at the moment is the ability, totally at his/her own discretion, to pardon criminals whom the courts have found guilty of crimes. Let's be truthful with ourselves, many (I know, not all) pardons particularly political ones, smack of dictatorial favor-giving. Each politician has his own realm within which he is a small or big dictator--from granting contracts to his "favored ones" to declaring war.

I fail to see how you consider that to be dictatorial. A dictator's power is usually considered to be absolute; any kind of boundary placed upon it, either by limit of term or by limit of zone of authority, transforms it into something else. Although I will admit that many officials, elected or otherwise, do seem to behave as though they had dictatorial powers...

And I don't know about other countries, but what I've read leads me to believe that no single individual in America has the power to 'declare' war. The POTUS has, if I recall correctly, the authority to 'wage' war, meaning (if I understand correctly) that if we get attacked he can direct our military to fight back without having to have a specific declaration, but the power to 'declare' war, from what I've seen, lies with a multiple-person organization, the United States Congress. (I can't recall at the moment if it's both houses or just the Senate...anybody want to help clear that up for me?)

That's not to say that such niceties are always adhered to. The Korean War and Vietnam War, according to Wikipedia, were officially classified as 'Police Actions' in the United States, to avoid having to seek a direct declaration of war.

Okay, so find me a country, any half democratic country, where infighting isn't an issue. You wanna tell me it's not an issue in the US, which is rather far from being a socialist country? Or how about England, or Japan...

Okay, so find me a country, any half democratic country, where infighting isn't an issue. You wanna tell me it's not an issue in the US, which is rather far from being a socialist country? Or how about England, or Japan...